The Instigator
Con (against)
The Contender
Pro (for)

Gun Control

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
andude255 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 333 times Debate No: 123107
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Many political figures in this country have decided to go against the nations constitution and have decided that gun control and revision of gun laws is needed. The United States Constitution, In Amendment 2 states, "A well regulated Militia, Being necessary to the security of a free State, The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, Shall not be infringed. " This amendment directly states that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. This means that under no circumstance shall this constitutional right be taken away from us.

Have there been situations where the U. S. Constitution has been changed? Yes. But does this give us free range to make poor decisions regarding the constitution? No. The constitution and more importantly the amendments were well thought out laws and standards for our country that provides the very foundation for which America stands on. It is blatantly going against everything we stand for whether we're democratic or republican to put stipulations and laws preventing us from exercising our constitutional rights.

We as Americans believe that true freedom guided and achieved by our government is the key to living a happy life, And with the resources and laws to achieve true freedom there is no reason we should go against that by removing basic rights.

Now as important as the fact that gun possession is permitted through the constitution is, There are other reasons as to why we should not prevent gun possession. One of the most simple yet important facts is that the crimes committed with guns and other weapons are simply crimes. People are going out of there way, Developing plans and processes to commit mass murder and destruction with these weapons. This shows us that these are people that care so little about the processing of achieving their goal that they are willing to go against the very laws we have set to make the US great. According to KUNC. Org 74% of mass shootings since 1982 were committed with illegally obtained guns.

Simply preventing guns will online cause more problems. More people will go to illegal ways to get guns and weapons and more crimes will be committed. As an example of this, Marijuana has been illegal since 1937 but according to drugfreeworld. Org 94 million Americans have admitted to using it at least once. That's 94 million that have gone against the preventative laws to use something illegal. This same example can be applied to this situation in the sense that the same people that are willing to commit a crime and cause mass destruction are also willing to commit a crime to achieve their goal and that means that these people will be willing to obtain their gun illegally.

Not only will this heightened crime cause more distraction and work for our police force, It will also strip people who live in rural areas, Where the average police response time is low, Of their right to protect themselves from an intruder with a weapon.

In conclusion, Prevention of the possession and purchasing of guns will effectively only create more problems and won't do much to help us with our current situation. A much better and more feasible solution is to improve security. This will not only let Americans continue to practice their constitutional rights but also provide us with a simple, Effective, And easy solution to the gun violence problem.


Hello! I want to preface this by saying my goal here is to have a CIVIL debate in which we mutually benefit each other. Every debater's goal should be to change their mind when walking into a debate. That is my goal here. And it should be your goal too. I am not saying that we should CONCEDE our beliefs; I am instead saying that we should be open to new ideas.

Starting with your first couple paragraphs, I disagree with your line of thinking off the bat. Your argument breaks down to "We should not change the constitution because IT IS the constitution and the constitution is what is right for our country". See the circular argument there? When the question "Should gun reform take place? " is asked, It is important to note the SHOULD in that question. The resolution is not a question of IS, But is instead a question of OUGHT and SHOULD. Obviously on my side, I believe gun reform SHOULD take place. Your first couple paragraphs do not negate that fact and instead misconstrue the argument into a question of IS. I believe gun reform should take place and that the second amendment should be altered. What do you say in those first two paragraphs that directly clash with my side?

im gonna be honest, Im in history class rn, And I do not have a strong stance on gun control at all. I got tired after writing that paragraph, So i will just concede here. You win goodbye
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by 1leroy 2 years ago
Did you know that most of the mass shooting is done by illegal guns? Around 60 years ago it became illegal, Without a permit, To own a fully automatic firearm, Which means, Pull the trigger once and multiple bullets come out.

Also, The columbine shooter, As well as most mass shooters, Break over 18 gun laws, Why would have 3 more stopped them?
Posted by John_C_1812_II 2 years ago
The 2nd Amendment describes lethal force as a united state in basic principle with armament. It is you United State Constitutional right to present you argument in basic principle and legal precedent.
Do you feel when a person refuses to share equally the legal weight of lethal force it exposes them to a higher risk of danger FanboyMctoll?
Has lethal force changed in 300 years?
Will it change in another 3, 000 years or will or remain lethal force?
I"m think you live somewhere with a much lower constitutional standard then United state.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 years ago
Guns top 800k to 2 milliion violent crimes, Better shut up now
Posted by FanboyMctroll 2 years ago
is this a sales pitch from the NRA?

Guns are stupid and the only purpose they serve is to kill, Eliminate the 2nd amendment which was written in ancient times 300 years ago, Times have changed since then.

Now try explaining your sales pitch to the families of the victims of Las Vegas Shooting, The parents of the 6 years olds from Sandy Hook, Columbine, Stoneman High, Orlando Nightclub, Virginia Tec, El Paso and the hundreds of other victims due to some red neck inbreds who believe we need guns

Go fvck yourself and your guns, NRA salesman
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.